Just as an FYI for the interested, there is a self-hosted version of clojurescript now, it enables macros in the same runtime with some caveats but the main downside (AFAIK) is increased bundle size, which is less relevant for node.js.
There was a self-hosted CLJS project for Node.js which is now abandoned. It was called lumo. It came with a custom image of Node.js with lumo built-in for better startup times since the JS bundle of self-hosted CLJS is quite large resulting in not so great startup out of the box. Nbb is just a library that you can use with any Node.js version. That said, it might be worth revisiting the self-hosted CLJS approach at some point.
The most defensible / widespread use-case of getting money out of an oppressive regime strikes hollow to me as a lefty. Most people in an oppressive regime don't have the problem of moving large amounts of money around. And it only helps you with "temporarily store it somewhere with a wildly deviating value", how does that help when you need to get it BACK into your hands and actually spend it?
The real exploitation for 99% of the population isn't someone currency-manipulating your fortunes, it's being a de facto wage slave because we live in a system that decides at birth that you're a slave and 1% of people aren't. Crypto doesn't help you with that, ironically it makes it worse because it helps the kleptocracy move their money. That's who has a use for anonymous money, and they're normally robbing the locals. See: the Panama Papers, Russia
I've been thinking, how does one get free of the wage slavery situation, where I'm at?
Where I'm at I can't own land, only lease it from the govt for a specific purpose. A guy I know ended up paying back-fines for not actually making use of some chunk he leased. The real estate development investment sector is full of horror stories, some from people I know personally. Last year and this, many small businesses did not survive "stay home" messaging, but owe full year's worth of insurance and forward taxes non the less.
How do you accumulate wealth, exactly? Everything you could own depreciates faster and faster with time. There's no way to keep your money. You can make some money by speculating on the uneven depreciation rates of things.
Bitcoin (not other crypto) is specifically a thing one can own for 10 years, and get rid of at some point in the future presumably not having half or two-thirds of it's value gone by then. And I don't own any.
I'm the one-man shop who's business got owned by the govt messaging and now owes them.
> I've been thinking, how does one get free of the wage slavery situation, where I'm at?
Class solidarity and non-violent action. Look at history of 20th century, before neoliberalism took hold.
> How do you accumulate wealth, exactly?
Impossible to do en masse with private capital, since it is by and large ability to command other people. You can increase public goods, this is the wealth that (the society owning it) can increase and benefit from.
People will have to re-learn the lesson not to be so selfish.
I do not disagree on your points, but do on the basis of premise.
I do not believe we're any longer in a situation where people can achieve a critical mass of solidarity (even on the lower bound) leading to action. It seems to me that time has passed, and what public goods or you could say rights we have are on their way out.
It follows that an adaptation, a shift in personal thinking is required. I would have agreed with you in December 2019, but not after the summer of 2020.
Alternatively, everyone can gradually reject their manipulated fiat and embrace an alternative economic paradigm that eventually denies the government the ability to inflate away the value of their savings.
> The real exploitation for 99% of the population isn't someone currency-manipulating your fortunes, it's being a de facto wage slave because we live in a system that decides at birth that you're a slave and 1% of people aren't.
Coincidentally, the 1% are always people who have ties with the State and who have access to cheap credit. Bitcoin solves this.
> Crypto doesn't help you with that, ironically it makes it worse because it helps the kleptocracy move their money. That's who has a use for anonymous money, and they're normally robbing the locals. See: the Panama Papers, Russia
So you see Panama Papers and you infer that that the kleptocracy has any problems with storing their billions in bank accounts? The little guy needs Bitcoin, the kleptocracy does not.
I don't think Google has succeeded, for the same reasons you state ironically. "Making money/having power" isn't "success", it's "making money/having power". I don't find it at all ridiculous to say that Google and Facebook are failures, I (as the author) contest the synonymity of success and money. It's actually telling of how shit our society is that you (and most people) say "success" and mean "money", and find attempts to separate them laughable.
Well that’s a clause doing a lot of work. I guess email could have been the permanent contact repository a la Facebook if it had been easier for people to own their own addresses
Britain handled corona one of the worst in the world, the vaccine thing does seem like a genuine good news story but it’s bolting the door after the old people are all dead. Go back, look at the excess death rates, the extra preparation time the Uk squandered and the rhetoric at the time. Our ruling class have the blood of hundreds of thousands of dead on their hands and it’s astonishing that the entire British public is mollified by getting vaccinated a couple of months early, when the damage is already done.
My point wasn't that COVID was handled well, although I think there are more factors than government at play (It would be pretty hard to argue that the US govt has handled COVID better than the UK, so why is there death rate so much lower?).
My point was that it is plain to see that the vaccine roll out in the EU has been mired by competing interests and slow bureaucracy, which is exactly what the eurosceptics were claiming is wrong with the EU in 2016. Thus the vindication.
Much of the delay that the EU experienced can be attributed to the stricter scrutiny and liability conditions it applied to the vaccines, and the fact that the UK paid more per dose in order to jump to the front of the queue.
If anything, this vindicates the Remainers who claimed that the UK government would become more deregulated and more beholden to corrupt interests.
The EU was faced with an almost impossible set of constraints, either leaving the poorer countries to fend for themselves (and being portrayed as not caring about its ideals of unity and equality), or forcing the richer countries to vastly overpay for the doses of the poorer countries (and being portrayed as a wasteful drain on successful economies).
Of course, it is in the interests of rich countries to help people in poor countries get vaccinated so that they don't become breeding grounds for new variants, especially if those countries have important trade links and free movement with said rich countries, but unfortunately people can get quite selfish during a crisis and not see the bigger picture. This is why we can't have nice things.
The UK got a several-week headstart on the EU, announcing various partnerships, particularly with Oxford/AZ, before the EU even began their process. (Yes, I am aware that purchase orders were signed at different times, but the UK secured funding and supplies back in May last year, when the EU didn't begin its process until June)
Talking about "queue jumping" or "corruption" really seems to be rooted in bitterness or just anti-UK sentiment.
It’s about 40%, look it up there’s polling on it, and that’s apparently probably over representing the more trusting/sane ones. Partly joking on the last part dunno how the populated those polls.
Very often you do encounter polls these days where an absurdly huge number of people give hilariously trollish answers to pollsters, and then people take the resulting polls completely seriously. Pollsters try to include 'attention check' questions to catch basic issues like people just pressing yes to every question, but I do see very often polls that quite obviously can't match reality without anyone noticing it. There's something about maths that switches people's brains off.
Number of states that you get wrong isn’t a great measure though right? If I call if for trump at 51-49 and you call it for Biden at 75-25 and Biden wins by 51-49 I was more correct than you were, to count “states called” is the wrong way to evaluate analysis in the same way that fptp is unrepresentatove of the popular vote, ironically.
I agree with you, and that's why i made effort to differentiate between margins vs winning. In my opinion, 2020's polls were a lot worse than 2016's, but because of Biden's much bigger lead (in the polls and in key states), the polling errors did not cross the threshold to be "wrong" in the winner take all system. Finally, there is an argument that even a Biden 75-25 call gives the correct outcome because each state is a winner take all system (with the exception of NE and ME, iirc). From a stats standpoint, the delta in that example make it very inaccurate, but from a model/communication standpoint, getting each state "right" (in binary terms) is very valuable.
Trafalgar had completely different results than the rest of the consensus, and once counts are more finalized in non swing states (places like CA and NY take forever, but we don't pay attention because they are always blue), we can accurately compare the polling and real results between different pollsters and polling methodologies. Some experts have cautioned against using exit polls for this purpose (what is usually done for a quick read of polling accuracy), because exit polls are only measuring election day in person votes, and thus trend really red this year. Trafalgar had unconventional methodologies like a "shy trump voter" bias where they arbitrarily shifted their numbers to the right, with weirdly consistent results of Trump +3 in a bunch of close/blue states. Perhaps there is more complicated justification of these numbers in the background, but I'm concerned that even if their deltas end up better than the "normal" pollsters, they are generating an inferior product with overbaked data.
They tried to come up with approaches to get around the very effect the article talks about: Trump voters don't answer survey questions. The main differences in methodology were making fewer assumptions about Republican turnout, larger sample sizes, and different survey techniques.
Trafalgar clearly missed some things: traditionally republican collar counties breaking hard for Biden. (My county didn't vote for Obama either time, but voted for Biden by 12, after voting for the republican governor a couple of years ago by 38.) But 538 had some insane misses this year in critical states like Wisconsin (off by 7.7), Ohio (off by 7.3), Florida (off by 5.9), etc. Finalizing counts in NY and CA isn't going to change those numbers--and Trafalgar wasn't analyzing them anyway.
Like I said in an earlier comment, comparisons between polls and a model aren't completely fair. Part of the model's calculation is that 8.8 points or whatever requires an enormous polling error to swing for trump. I do agree that other polls should get criticism/improve their methodologies to avoid the ~5 point margin in FL, or the 7.7 margin you listed. And, I even think that they may not get as much criticism as their errors warrant because many of these states were off by 6+ points but still went for Biden. Still, Trafalgar has a unique methodology that should be understood better before they are extolled as the "best pollster". And, Trafalgar is not immune to similar polling errors, just in the other direction, and with a wrong result. The delta may be more important from a statistical methodology standpoint, but these polls are measuring winner take all states, and "The Trafalgar Group’s Robert Cahaly is an outlier among pollsters in that he thinks President Trump will carry Michigan, Pennsylvania, or both, and hence be reelected with roughly 280 electoral votes" is a pretty poor prediction based on their data. Does this mean that their data is necessarily poor? No, but it isn't a good sign.
No we didn’t, that system wasn’t proportional representation by any definition, please do not make posts that are not true, other readers might be misled.
Summarizing the article (?) I wonder whether there’s a way to split this concept of technical debt into two axes.
If you do waterfall, your code is technically “simple”, because it has a nice architecture, but it’s “misaligned”- it won’t fit the problem well because it hasn’t been tested. This seems like the ur technical debt.
If you code to solve every problem as fast as possible and patch/rip it up to stay close to the domain- now your code is complex/ugly because design philosophy has been neglected, but it’s well aligned to the problem, call that modern tech debt.
So you have two axes, ugliness/beauty and misalignment/“fit”. Modern practice says to focus on iterating fit quickly then more occasionally solve beauty, in big steps. So aesthetic debt vs alignment debt.
